Cong’s Haryana story: From pole position to political oblivion

BY winning the 2024 Haryana Assembly elections for the third time in a row, the BJP accomplished the unthinkable. By losing the 2024 and 2019 elections — when it was in a pole position to form the government — the Congress too accomplished the unthinkable: snatching defeat from the BJP. Not only Congress party workers, but also people from across different strata are worried about the future of the party. But the Grand Old Party remains unmoved despite the electoral losses. This inertia in the party has prevailed over the last decade, even as it has seen a steady decline in its electoral fortunes.

In Haryana, the Congress is presiding over not just a defunct organisation, but an organisation that was dissolved by its own order of May 2014. It has failed to meet the many deadlines it set for itself over the decade: of restructuring the DCCs, BCCs, cells and departments. It has had three PCC presidents in 11 years and under them, contested a number of Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, byelections and local body elections — all without having any organisation.

Haryana is a classic case study of how not to win an election. The 2024 elections turned out to be a repeat of the 2019 polls as the high command failed to take any corrective steps despite the 2019 debacle.

With bitterness spilling amongst the contenders for the top state party post, it was bound to lose. The high command chose to not address the infighting in the party and allowed the situation to simmer. As a result, the commanders were left presiding over losses, not just as mute and helpless watchmen, but as passive collaborators, brimming with overconfidence, with not even the promise of undertaking introspection.

The non-appointment of a CLP leader till date reveals indecisiveness and weakness. We should have been introspecting the allegations levelled, including those over ticket distribution, such as ‘chamri and damri’. But even after the humiliating debacle, the ‘responsible’ people continue to be ‘irresponsible’ or unaccountable. It is business as usual, signifying carelessness or complicity, or both.

The Congress screening committee bungled big time on ticket distribution. Had it not given in to the vested interests of ‘chamri and damri’ at the cost of the party, people in the know say that the election results would have been different. This is apparent from the fact that many chosen candidates eventually either lost their deposits or lost badly. Underperformance comes from downplaying the importance of addressing the issues of leaders and frustration among party workers. It can be intentional, too.

At the same time, it seems that those ruling the roost earlier continue to do so now. They are not likely to be held responsible for selecting wrong candidates. Many seats were clearly given on a platter to the BJP.

Driving with uncorrected short-sightedness leads to accidents. It has led the Congress party to lose two Rajya Sabha seats mid-term — one each from Rajasthan and Haryana. The party failed to retain the Haryana seat, which it had vacated after the Lok Sabha elections. As a result, the Congress barely saved its status of LoP in the Rajya Sabha by a whisker.

Self-interest is the rule that rules over the party, overruling party interests. The Udaipur resolution of ‘one man, one post’ as also the rule of a five-year term in a post continue to be flouted by the very people who formulated them, under the very noses of those who blessed it. For, they know that they are above rules.

Favouritism is deleterious to fairness. In these times of discussion of ‘vote chori’ in Karnataka and opposition over the SIR in Bihar, every party is riddled with compromises, bulldozing their criteria of clean candidate selection. The Gurgaon Assembly constituency in 2019 is a glaring example of the selection of the Congress candidate who he had 18 FIRs against him for, nothing less than, fake voting. Youth Congress elections in many states have been mired in allegations of fake, manipulated delegate enrolment, often tilting the scales in favour of the rich, pedigreed or sponsored candidates of big leaders.

Charity must begin at home. Over the years of decline, sycophancy and mediocrity have made a great team. Such oft-repeated words of leaders as ‘giving a chance to fresh faces, educated persons with no criminal background, persons with organisational commitment and devotion to the party and people not belonging to dynasties’ remain empty words.

Senior party functionaries cite two major drawbacks of the dispensation ruling the party: the lack of dialogue and ignoring of feedback from the ground in decision-making.

The party has gone in for a replacement policy rather than one of transition. This is not a good management or HR practice. The party’s inability to retain talent has pushed away many capable leaders, whom other parties have lapped up.

Were all those who left the party wedding horses or lame horses? If they had been earlier chosen by the party for their capability and merit, calling them lame now is a lame excuse. A horse wins a race only when it is trained well by its trainer. Only the owner is responsible for choosing the racehorse.

Who took the blame for not choosing proven winning horses for the crucial races in Assam and Punjab and, rather, pushing them off the track? No one. A candidate wins by winning over people by raising issues that resonate with them; not issues that one in his own wisdom thinks are important. The ability to identify the pulse of the people constitutes leadership.

The Congress party must first overcome its inability to segregate real horses from those having the mask of a horse. It must learn to identify a capable horse, who could be trained as a racing horse. It must recognise its assets. It must take steps to cover the distance between a win and a loss; and undertake those steps fast, not furious. For, in a battle, especially of nerves, it is also important to hold one’s horses. These steps are needed in national interest.

Ashish Dua is a AICC member.

Comments